Dating the English Letter "J"

[wmssid]

Who Can Finish This Story? Help Needed! [September 6, 2008.]

1) Nicene Creed, AD 325: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
2) Latin Vulgate, AD 405: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
3) Wycliffe, AD 1380: “Iesous” reads: “Iesu” and “Ihesu”
3) William Tyndale*, AD 1526 & AD 1534: “Iesous” (seemingly) reads: “Jesu.”
4) Geneva Bible, AD 1599: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
5) 1611 KJV: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
6) Rheims NT, 1582, Philippians 1.1, “Iesvs.”
7) Rheims NT, 1649 – unable to locate copy of original print.
All Greek manuscripts and Interlinear Bibles read: “Iesous” (Ihsous).

NOTE *: “Jesu” is an anachronism (out-of-order).

UNABLE TO FIND:
A) “Date for Beginning of English Letter ‘J”.
B) Determine if “Tyndale Bible” is fake.

NEEDED: Research Expert.

NOTE B: “The ‘Jesus Freaks’ have systematically corrupted historical records, substituting “Jesus” in historical records before the “letter ‘J’” was invented.

Wars of the Jews, AD 95, by Josephus, had the name “Jesus” interpolated. This has been declared by many writers, especially “Old Testament” heretics. [But their heresy does not mollify their accurate conclusions.]

Apostolic Fathers, 1889, J.B. Lightfoot, beginning in First Century AD (Ignatius; “Man of Sin”; has “Jesus” postdated before there was a English letter ‘J’”.

Geneva Bible, 1599, Matthew, page 1; 5 names, “Iesus,” and one verse written over to read, “JESUS.”

Geneva Bible; NT, 1602 Edition; Title Page, “Iesus.”; NT, 977 times, “Iesus.”

1611 Edition, To The Most High and Mightie Prince, Iames by the grace of God.”

NOTE: The web has a portrait of, “Rex Iacobus.”

NT – “Iesus” – 977 times.

Revised Rheims NT, 1749-52: “Jesus” – 977 times. [No copy of original print.]

Who is skilled in historical research to date the letter, “J,” and to pronounce the “William Tyndale Bible” modern production, either “fake” or “true”?

NOTE: September 9, 208 – The Living God has finished the story for me!!!

This morning, I have noticed that the pronoun, “I” in Williams Tyndale Bible, of 1826, is the letter “J.”

Matthew, page 6 reads: “J (I) whofe shues:; and, “for J (I) faye unto you”; and, “Jordan,” and, “F (I) ought to be ba[tyfed”: and, “Jefus.” [Therefore, “I” = “J.”]
NOTE: When the letter “S: is the first letter of a word, or an imbedded letter in a word, it was recorded by a letter similar to our lower case, “f.” When the letter “S” was the final letter of a word, it was recorded similar to our lower case letter, “s.”

DATING THE LETTER “J” IN ENGLISH.

The first English Bible translation (that I have seen) with the letter, “J”, was the Revised Rheims New Testament, 1749-52. [I was unable to find an original print, and so, this too may “seemingly” had the letter “J” as Tnydale’s work “seemingly” had the letter “J” (which was really, an “I”).
The REASON (in my opinion) for changing the letter “I”, in “Iesus” to the letter “J” in “Jesus”, was the misunderstanding that the letter “I” in Tyndale’s Bible, 1526, resembled our present day letter, “J.”
Therefore (in my opinion), the letter “J” was added to the English alphabet in the period, “AD 1749-52.”
AND – this message was from the Living God by the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

wmssid

 

[wmssid]

Who Can Finish This Story? Help Needed! [September 6, 2008.]

1) Nicene Creed, AD 325: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
2) Latin Vulgate, AD 405: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
3) Wycliffe, AD 1380: “Iesous” reads: “Iesu” and “Ihesu”
3) William Tyndale*, AD 1526 & AD 1534: “Iesous” (seemingly) reads: “Jesu.”
4) Geneva Bible, AD 1599: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
5) 1611 KJV: “Iesous” reads: “Iesus.”
6) Rheims NT, 1582, Philippians 1.1, “Iesvs”; Iohn Fogny, publisher.
7) Rheims NT, 1600, “IESVS”; Daniel Vervliet, publisher.
8) Rheims NT, 1733, “IESVS”; Iohn Covstvner, publisher.

All Greek manuscripts and Interlinear Bibles read: “Iesous” (Ihsous).

NOTE *: “Jesu” is an anachronism (out-of-order).

UNABLE TO FIND:
A) “Date for Beginning of English Letter ‘J”.
B) Determine if “Tyndale Bible” is fake.

NEEDED: Research Expert.

NOTE B: “The ‘Jesus Freaks’ have systematically corrupted historical records, substituting “Jesus” in historical records before the “letter ‘J’” was invented.

Wars of the Jews, AD 95, by Josephus, had the name “Jesus” interpolated. This has been declared to be an interpolation by many writers, especially “Old Testament” heretics. [But their heresy does not mollify their accurate conclusions.]

Apostolic Fathers, 1889, J.B. Lightfoot, beginning in First Century AD (Ignatius; “Man of Sin”; has “Jesus” postdated before there was a English letter ‘J’”).

Geneva Bible, 1599, Matthew, page 1; 5 names, “Iesus,” and one verse written over to read, “JESUS.”

Geneva Bible; NT, 1602 Edition; Title Page, “Iesus.”; NT, 977 times, “Iesus.”

1611 Edition, To The Most High and Mightie Prince, Iames by the grace of God.” NT – “Iesus” – 977 times.

NOTE: The web has a portrait of, “Rex Iacobus.”

Help was sent from the Living God by the Holy Spirit.

NOTE: September 9, 2008 – The Living God has finished the story for me!!!

This morning, I have noticed that the pronoun, “I” in the William Tyndale Bible, of 1826, was written (in an attempt for flowery writing) similar to the letter “J.”

Matthew, page 6 reads: “J (I) whofe shues:; and, “for J (I) faye unto you”; and, “Jordan” (I) and, “F (I) ought to be ba[tyfed”: and, “Jefus.” [Therefore, “I” = “J” in Tyndale’s writing style.]
NOTE: When the letter “S: is the first letter of a word, or an imbedded letter in a word, it was recorded by a letter similar to our lower case, “f.” When the letter “S” was the final letter of a word, it was recorded similar to our lower case letter, “s.”

DATING THE LETTER “J” IN ENGLISH.

The first English Bible translation (that I have seen) with the letter, “J”, was the Revised Rheims New Testament, 1738.

9) Rheims NT, “JESUS”; 1738, Bishop Richard Challoner, Reviser.


The REASON (in my opinion) for changing the letter “I”, in “Iesus” to the letter “J” in “Jesus”, was the misunderstanding that the letter “I” in Tyndale’s Bible, 1526, resembled our present day letter, “J.”
Therefore (in my opinion), the letter “J” was added to the English alphabet in the period, “AD 1738.”

AND – this message to me was from the Living God by the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

Sid Williams, Seven Lamps Library, PO Box 305, Granite City IL 62040

wmssid

 

[AnthonyB]

wmssid,

The English alphabet changed quite a bit, the change to using J instead I at the beginning of words especially where it was consonatal, was only one of a number of changes.

Thorn the the th letter that looks a bit like "y" dropped out. You still see it in "ye old shoppe", where 'ye" is should actually be pronounced "the".

Ash disappeared the "æ"vowel letter.

Yogh which looks like lower case z with a cursive tail.

Using a f type character for the last "s", as in blesfeth.

Whether we use a j or a v in transliterating into english is surely of no particular merit. The changes were not done just to the name of our Lord but reflected changes in the language itself. Unless you wish to communicate in Chaucerian English, I think letting go and excepting that languages and especially english changeth.

 

[wmssid]

Bishop Richard Chanoller (Roman Catholic), of London, did not only change the letter "I" in Greek to read "J"; but he also changed the letter "Y" in Hebrew to read "J."

So then, all names beginning with "Y" or "I" were changed in AD 1738.

"Iesus" had been in Bible translations, and writings about the Bible, from the Council of Nicaea, in AD 325 until AD 1737.

"Iesous" emphasized meeting "in My name"; but no one can do that today.

They do not know His name.

 

[- DRA -]

Bishop Richard Chanoller (Roman Catholic), of London, did not only change the letter "I" in Greek to read "J"; but he also changed the letter "Y" in Hebrew to read "J."

So then, all names beginning with "Y" or "I" were changed in AD 1738.

"Iesus" had been in Bible translations, and writings about the Bible, from the Council of Nicaea, in AD 325 until AD 1737.

"Iesous" emphasized meeting "in My name"; but no one can do that today.

They do not know His name.

"In the name of the Lord" means to act by His authority. Note Acts 4:7. It doesn't mean that we have to stick to the Koine Greek per se.

Note Colossians 3:17. All that we say and do is to be done in the name of the Lord, that is, by His authority. We can indeed do that today. We do it by doing the things He authorized (i.e., His will or testament per Hebrews 9:16-17).

Now that I know the basis for your protest about the English word Jesus, I am beginning to better understand why you feel so isolated when trying to discuss the Bible with others. I sincerely believe you are drawing lines of division in the sand that should NOT be drawn, and most folks aren't going to keep digging and digging and digging to understand why you believe and promote what you do. Therefore, you find yourself alone standing on the sand on your side of the line you drew in the sand.

Suggestion. Take a broom and sweep that line of division away, and let's discuss what it truly means to act "in the name of the Lord" ... together ... with our Bibles ... and minds ... open.

 

[wmssid]

Analyzing the Education of DRA:

1) “In the name of the Lord means to act by His authority. Note: Acts 4.7. It doesn’t mean that we have to stick to the Koine Greek per se.”

REBUTTAL: During the Millennium, I was trained as a young boy to spot a liar.
This is critical to your salvation. If you know not who the liar is, then you are in grave danger.

Axiom: The liar mixes apples and oranges, treating two distinct subjects as though they are one and the same thing.

Acts 4.10 [DRA’s 4.7 is Error]; “He will be (estw) known in all the people of Israel that in the name OF IESUO ANOINTED [dweller] of the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom THE GOD raised from dead, in this [name] this [man] stands before you whole.”

DRA’s “in name of Lord” was not found in the text.

The subject was “healing.” Then, “This is the Stone ..” (Acts 4.11) was Koine Greek translation of a Hebrew Scripture. Strict adherence to both Greek and Hebrew Scripture was observed by “Rock” (Petros). There is no precedent for mutilating the Koine Greek New Testament.

2) Note Colossians 3.17; DRA: “And all the [thing] what ever you will do in word or in work, all in name of Lord IESOU giving thanks to THE GOD and FATHER through [favor] of Him.” [“the word of the ANOINTED, he will dwell in you – verse 16.]

DRA: “It doesn’t mean that we have to stick to the Koine Greek per se.”
DRA has not the name of the Lord, and he opposes me for using it.
Here also, there was no hint about “throwing away the Koine Greek.”

3) “(i.e., His will or testament per Hebrews 9.16-17).

“For where a testament, death is necessary to be offered, of the [one] making the testament. For a testament on dead [people] is permanent, since it is never valid when The [One] making the testament lives” – Heb 9.16-17.

DRA has a reference with no “name of Lord” and no mention of treatment of Koine Greek.

4) Drawing lines in the sand,

“I am beginning to better understand why you feel so isolated when trying to discuss the Bible with others. I sincerely believe you are drawing lines in the sand that should NOT be drawn …”

DRA must have failed grade school grammar. I have historically documented who drew the lines of division, and it was Gog and Magog; or “the mighty church doctor” and his “school.”
This was BOTH historically and biblically documented.
[My personal opinion of DRA is that he is too lazy to read. That would require his number of posts on the Internet to be greatly curtailed. He would not give that up for knowledge and wisdom.]

“God and one makes a majority.” [I am not alone.]

“I speak, and kingdoms wane and fall.”

Iesous, the King, promised this to his students, and “they spoke to the Mountain (Israel) and it was removed.”

Martin Luther spoke to the mountain and half of it was removed to the north – Zec 14.4.

Alexander Campbell spoke to Babylon and it was removed.

I have been speaking to Gog and Magog and their losses are in the news regularly.

And, what has DRA ever accomplished?

And, why is DRA so bold to speak against the Bible?

 

[wmssid]

#1 (Numbers in the thousands).
Churches of Christ

2,163​

10​

1,500​

16​

-30.7%​

32​

#2
Churches of Christ (Non-Instrumental)

USA​

1,284,056​

-​

-​

-​

1990​

*LINK* web site: "Religions and Health Care " by Fr. J Mahoney, M.Div.; web page: "Membership Reported " (viewed 20 Feb. 1999); [Orig. source: J. Gordon Melton. Encyclopedia of American Religions, 6th edition, copyright 1999, Gale Publishing]
Table: "Membership Reported "; 3 key columns: "Religious Group ", "Year ", "Membership " (which always specifies location, whether U.S., North America, or Total]; listed in table as "Churches of Christ (Non-Instrumental) "



#3 – Christians Only, 1962, James DeForest Murch, page 309:

“In 1960 authentic statistical sources listed … 2, 025,000 giving the Church of Christ status with the leading religious bodies of the nation [compare: 1,284,056 for 1990]. About 80 per cent of the churches are in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

#4 – Stone-Campbell Movement, 1981, Leroy Garrett, page 681:

“1,256,000 ‘adherents,’ which includes the unbaptized children of members.”

So then, conservatively speaking, 10 to 15 per cent are not really members. You have to be “hard up” to resort to such a dirty trick in accounting. “Minus 10 per cent” would total: 1,130,400 “actual” members.
“Minus 15 per cent” would equal: 1,068,000 “actual” members. [This was in 1981.]

$5 - 923,663 in 1895 (before the Split) – A Documentary History of Religion in America Since 1865, 1983, Edwin S. Gaustad, page 92..

2,025,000 in 1962.
1,284,056 in 1990.

No one can win souls without the “Bible message”, banned in 1948.
12 members (AD 1812) to 923,663 (1895) – with the Bible – is an increase of 923,652 members in 83 years; or,
111,285 new members per year for 83 years – with the Bible.

2,025,000 (1962) – 1,284,056 (1990) = 741,944 members lost in 28 years – without the Bible.

NOTE: I do not place much confidence in these numbers, except in a very general sense, that RM (with the Bible) grew in numbers, and ex-RM (without the Bible) lost membership.

You cannot save souls “without the Bible!”